Jurisdiction and Property in Cross-Border Family Disputes: Lessons from Florescu v. Lodato, 2025 BCSC 1950
Jurisdiction plays a critical role in cross-border family disputes, particularly when property division spans multiple countries. In this case,the Supreme Court of British Columbia demonstrates how and when it may decline jurisdiction in favour of a more appropriate forum. This case highlights the importance of early jurisdictional strategy to avoid parallel proceedings, reduce costs, and ensure disputes are resolved where they are most closely connected.
Overview
In cross-border family law disputes, one of the most decisive and often underestimated issues is jurisdiction. The jurisdiction in which property claims are heard can significantly affect both process and outcome. The decision in Florescu v. Lodato, 2025 BCSC 1950 (“Florescu”) illustrates not only how jurisdiction is established, but more importantly, when and why the courts in British Columbia may decline to exercise it.
This case highlights the strategic importance of raising jurisdictional arguments early and effectively, particularly where parallel proceedings are in play.
A Dispute Across Borders
In Florescu, the parties’ relationship spanned two jurisdictions. The parties were married in Italy, but the wife and children later moved to British Columbia, where they lived for many years, while the husband remained in Italy. After separation, proceedings were started in British Columbia, raising the question: should property issues be decided in British Columbia, in Italy, or both places
This kind of scenario is becoming increasingly common in modern family law matters and it highlights the risks of parallel proceedings, inconsistent outcomes, and increased legal costs.
Jurisdiction Is Not Just About Connection, It’s About Appropriateness
The courts in British Columbia may assume jurisdiction of a family matter where there is a real and substantial connection to the province. In many cases, like in Florescu, that test is easily met.
In considering whether it should exercise jurisdiction, the courts in British Columbia must also consider whether another forum is clearly more appropriate. If another forum is found to be more appropriate, the court will decline jurisdiction. The courts discretion is central, not exceptional, in cross-border family matters.
In Florescu, the parties’ relationship spanned Italy and British Columbia, with competing proceedings raising the risk of fragmented litigation. The court’s focus was pragmatic: where can this dispute be most fairly and efficiently resolved?
Key considerations included:
- Avoiding parallel proceedings;
- Preventing inconsistent outcomes;
- Promoting efficiency and reduced legal costs; and
- Assessing the true connection of the dispute to each forum, including the location of parties, assets, and evidence.
Where these factors favor another jurisdiction, the courts in British Columbia may decline jurisdiction over the issue being tried, as was the result in Florescu.
Conclusion
The decision in Florescu demonstrates that jurisdictional disputes are not merely procedural, they can fundamentally shape the course, efficiency, and outcome of cross-border family litigation. In this case, the Supreme Court of British Columbia accepted the position advanced on behalf of the Respondent and stayed the property and debt division claims in British Columbia, finding that Italy was clearly the more appropriate forum. The Court emphasized several decisive factors: the property was located in Italy, the witnesses and documentary evidence were primarily Italian, and Italian law governed the issues in dispute.
The result underscores the importance of a focused and evidence-driven jurisdictional strategy at the earliest stages of litigation. Successfully establishing the appropriate forum can avoid fragmented proceedings, reduce unnecessary cost and delay, and ensure that disputes are determined in the jurisdiction most closely connected to the issues at hand.
For parties involved in international family disputes, this decision is a reminder that strategic forum analysis is often as important as the substantive claims themselves. Our firm was pleased to successfully represent the party seeking to have the property issues determined in Italy, securing a result that aligned the litigation with the location of the assets, witnesses, and governing law.
Disclaimer: This content is provided solely for informational purposes and is not intended for use in any legal proceeding. You should consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
